JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri Jyotinjay Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Niwas Bajpayee, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. The instant Special Appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 12.11.2008 passed by Hon’ble the Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 was allowed and the impugned order dated 3.5.2008 was quashed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that being aggrieved by the order dated 3.5.2008 passed by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sitapur whereby the respondent No. 1 was transferred from Junior High School Maholi District Sitapur to Junior High School, Gwahdeeh, Rampur Kala, Distt. Sitapur, the respondent No. 1 preferred a Writ Petition which was registered as Writ Petition No. 2410(S/S) of 2008. The said writ petition was contested by the appellant by filing counter affidavit. The learned Single Judge after hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record allowed the writ petition and quashed the transfer order on the ground that a plain reading of the transfer order itself shows that there are charges against the petitioner and as such it is a stigmatic order. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that by the order dated 3.5.2008, the respondent No. 1 was transferred from one school to another within the District of Sitapur on administrative ground. He further submits that the Hon’ble Single Judge has quashed the transfer order on the ground that it is a stigmatic order. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2004(4) SCC 245 , Union of India and others v. Janardhan Debanath and another. He further submits that the respondent No. 1 himself admitted in the rejoinder affidavit that the amounts were deposited, subsequent to the transfer order dated 3.5.2008. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. He further submits that in the impugned transfer order the word “AAROP” has been used against the petitioner, which amounts stigma and as such the Hon’ble Single Judge has rightly quashed the impugned transfer order. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. He further submits that in the impugned transfer order the word “AAROP” has been used against the petitioner, which amounts stigma and as such the Hon’ble Single Judge has rightly quashed the impugned transfer order. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. A perusal of the order dated 3.5.2008 reveals that the petitioner was transferred from one school to another within the same district on administrative ground and by the mere use of word “AAROP” in the impugned transfer order, it cannot be said that the order is a stigmatic order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402 , has observed as under : “7. ...... Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Janardhan Debanath and another, (2004) 4 SCC 245 , has observed as under- “12. ....... The manner, nature and extent of exercise to be undertaken by Courts/tribunals in a case to adjudge whether it casts a stigma or constitutes one by way of punishment would also very much depend upon the consequences flowing from the order and as to whether it adversely affected any service conditions—status, service prospects financially—and the same yardstick, norms or standards cannot be applied to all categories of cases. Transfers unless they involve any such adverse impact or visit the persons concerned with any penal consequences, are not required to be subjected to same type of scrutiny, approach and assessment as in the case of dismissal, discharge, reversion or termination and utmost latitude should be left with the department concerned to enforce discipline, decency and decorum in public service which are indisputably essential to maintain quality of public service and meet untoward administrative exigencies to ensure smooth functioning of the administration.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and another v. Siya Ram and another, (2004) 7 SCC 405 , has observed as under : “5. ...... No Government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration.” 11. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge is legally not sustainable. 12. In the result the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 12.11.2008 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge is hereby set aside. ————